Tā, kā mēs paši esam un pilnīgi viss mūsu jelkad sasniegtais ir daļa no šīm "dubļu pikām" (t.i., fizikāla Visuma), tad nekādu citu mērauklu un nekādu citu nozīmes standartu arī nevajag. If we are at all to arrive at some notion of what is good, it will be only through the notion of what is real. Everything else is irrelevant.

Šādu dzīves un sabiedrības filosofiju pamati jau pastāv, g.k. sekulārā humānisma veidā.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

We have already arrived at any possible notion of what is good, because it has always been self evident. Pity that there are so many people who are not among ''we'' (like you) and need to be kept in check by simple force.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

If it has been felt by some as self-evident then only because most notions of what is good have so far been based on nothing but moral intuitions and built-in organic automatism. It is this treatment of humanly important categories as ontological primitives that has led to the fallacy of idealism, and to the greater fallacy of transcendentalism.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Instead we must have relativism for which only truth is that there are no truths. The ''mounth Everest of modern thought.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

The only kind of truth is the measure of correspondence of one's beliefs to empirical data.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

No empīrisma nevar izvedināt labi/slikti aksiomas, tāpēc paļaušanās uz pliku saentismu nekur tālāk par tupu relatīvismu neved. Par to arī bija OP.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Šādas aksiomas no empīrikas (tie ir tikai dati, tas nav "isms") tiešām nevar izvedināt, bet tas (t.i., aksiomu ieviešana) ētikai, pēc manām domām, arī nav vajadzīgs.

(Reply to this) (Parent)